Kevin Drum poses the question:
Should the Geneva Conventions apply to captured Taliban fighters? And if you think they shouldn’t, why not?
I think he may also mean to terrorists in general, not just Taliban fighters. He also adds that:
If you want to argue that it’s because war on terrorism is somehow more critical or more deadly than either the Cold War (potential global Armageddon, Europe/world saved from communism) or World War II (60 million dead, Europe/world saved from fascism), you’d better make a mighty good case.
And while you’re at it, you should also plainly state whether you think suspending the Conventions applies only to the U.S., or if it’s OK for everyone else as well. Might as well get all our cards out on the table at once.
A mighty interesting debate could be the result. Where do I stand?
Erring on the side of the Geneva Convention folks.